RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01616
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 30 April
1989 through 29 April 1990 be declared void and removed from his
records or in the alternative, change "Does Not Meet Standards" in
Section V., Judgments and Decisions, to "Meets Standards," and delete
the last line in the "Rater Overall Assessment" in Section VI.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
This referral report is prejudicial to his career. He has
consistently been in the top 5-10 percent of his peers. The OPR
unjustly and unfairly represents his performance then and now. The
bullet should not have been included on the report because the
incident was still under investigation. The rater misunderstood the
magnitude of the incident--which was caused by a misunderstanding with
the Security Police. He was later exonerated due to the findings of
an IG complaint.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of the referral OPR
and rebuttal statement.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the
grade of Major with a date of rank of 1 August 1998.
Applicant was considered and non-selected for promotion to the grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel
Selection Board.
The application is not timely. The applicant did not file an appeal
under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted
Evaluation System, 1 Dec 97.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE recommend denied. The contested 29 April 1990 OPR was
referred to the applicant due to Section V, Item 5 marked "Does Not
Meet Standards", and comments in Section VI, "Demonstrated extremely
poor judgment; initiated a confrontation with base security police
which resulted in his apprehension." The applicant contends the
situation was still under investigation and he was exonerated by an
Inspector General (IG) investigation. However, the applicant did not
provide any evidence an IG investigation was conducted or the Summary
of Investigation exonerating him. He indicates he has attempted to
track down a copy of the investigation, but cannot find any related
paperwork.
The applicant contends the report is prejudicial to his career.
However, a report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant
believes it contributed to a nonselection for promotion or may impact
future promotion or career opportunities. We must be careful to keep
the promotion and evaluation issues separated, and to focus on the
evaluation report only. Although the report may be prejudicial to his
career, the applicant has not proven it is an invalid assessment or
that the incident did not take place. Furthermore, the applicant
states, in his rebuttal comments to the referral report, he did go "to
talk to the security police about a parking ticket," although he
denies, "initiating a confrontation". Whether he "went to talk to the
security police," or initiated a confrontation" is an issue of
semantics. The result still led to his apprehension and the
evaluators were obliged to consider the incident when assessing the
applicant's performance and potential.
The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 19 July 2002, for review and comment. As of this date,
no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice warranting a change or removal
of the OPR in question. We took notice of the applicant's complete
submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with
the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore,
the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice;
that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-01616
in Executive Session on 20 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Member
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 May 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, undated.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jul 02.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 6 Jul 99 through 3 Nov 99 be removed from his records. The primary argument to delete the referral OPR is detailed in his rebuttal to the OPR and in his IG complaint. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded and states that he never disputed that he made mistakes.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00436
By the time it was discovered that the allegations of misconduct against him were not supported by the facts, he had already been relieved of command. With the exception of the contested referral OPR closing 15 Aug 02, the applicant’s OPRs have been rated as “meets standards.” According to the military personnel data system, the applicant has an approved retirement effective 1 Oct 04. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Mar 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00614
Examiner’s Note: In a letter, dated 23 April 2002, SAF/IGQ indicated that, “In accordance with Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records Decision, 0200614, dated 13 Mar 02, the Air Force Inspector General’s office completed expunging the IG record of the May/June 2000 investigation concerning [the applicant].” However, the AFBCMR had never rendered a decision on the applicant’s request to expunge the USAFE/IG investigation. The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03385
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested OPR included a statement from a former supervisor who manipulated a former employee to file a sexual harassment complaint in order to discredit him. The rating chain and commander determined that it was appropriate to mention this within his 10 May 2001 OPR. AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01985
In support of her request, applicant submits a personal statement copies of the contested reports with her rebuttal statements, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions. The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 16 Aug 02 for review and response. The applicant has not presented...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03176 INDEX CODE: 111.01; 131.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) covering the period 18 March 1992 through 21 January 1997, be corrected and he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the...
SRA C--- immediately reported the m, Rand to Lt Col K--- U--- , the Deployed Director of incident to Lt Col P--- M---, the Deployed Detachment Commander, On 19 September 1994, C o l (BGen (sel)) J- Operations, contacted the _ - B--- I t Security Police and of the incident by Lt C o l M- reported be to the report of the investigation (ROI) by the Police, SRA C- - - s allegations were substantiated ( - Privileged Information) . Moreover, no witness who provided statements to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01057
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01057 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 OCTOBER 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 5 May 05 through 14 Feb 06 be voided and removed from his records. He contends that the commander used these three incidents for...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00945
On 30 November 2001, the applicant submitted an appeal regarding the 31 March 2000 OPR to the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that the members of his supervisory chain were not in a position to provide a correct evaluation of performance for the period of the OPR in question. Only with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01906
Copies of the reports of investigation are at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states his engagement with the AF/IG, CSAF, and Senators came after he attempted to utilize his chain of command and the ROTC/IG, who as the vice commander was in his chain of command. Therefore the...